In a very significant observation, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled K Indulekha v The Chairman TNPSC and others in W.P. Nos. 17456, 18843, 19151 and 19652 of 2023 and cited in 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 has most commendably suggested that the judicial examinations should be conducted every year to reduce the pendency of cases in the courts. It must be mentioned here that the Madras High Court in its concluding remarks said most elegantly, eloquently and effectively that:
Before parting with this judgment, we suggest that judicial service examinations shall be conducted every year so as to ensure to minimize the pending litigations, as of late, it is noticed that certain cases are pending for more than three decades in view of the fact that future vacancies are known on account of retirement of Judicial Officers.

Very rightly so! It is most pathetic that we see in many States including Uttar Pradesh which is the most populated State in India with maximum pending cases that judicial exams are usually held once in several years which only serves to compound the problem of pending cases and Centre pays just no attention to it just like it seldom cares that Uttar Pradesh has only one High Court Bench and that too so near to Allahabad and the litigants of West UP attached not even with Lucknow which is 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice meaning whole night and a day spent on just travelling alone which is nothing but the worst travesty of justice! It must be also mentioned here that a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice S Vaidyanathan and Hon’ble Mr Justice K Rajasekar of Madras High Court was hearing the petitions against the Advertisement and Notification pertaining to the selection process of Civil Judge that was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice S Vaidyanathan for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice K Rajasekar sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
These Writ Petitions have been filed, seeking for quashment and direction in respect of Advertisement No.661 and Notification No.12 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023, relating to the selection process of Civil Judge issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

As we see, the Division Bench states in para 2 that:
The issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is identical and therefore, we have taken up the matters together for hearing and disposal. We feel it appropriate to narrate the facts involved in each case separately for better understanding. For the sake of brevity, the petitioners are referred to by their names.

W.P.No.17456 of 2023:

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The petitioner/Indulekha, who had completed Law Degree in June, 2019 and enrolled as an Advocate with Karnataka State Bar Council on 23.08.2019. She had thereafter joined LLM course and completed the same in July, 2020 and after Corona pandemic, she joined as a Guest Faculty in a Private Law College. Subsequently, she was selected as Research Assistant on adhoc basis in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy (TNSJA) attached to Madras High Court and paid a consolidated pay, pursuant to which she had to suspend her practice temporarily;

3.1. There was no recruitment taken place for the post of Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu after the year 2018 and a Notification has now been issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) vide No.12 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 for the post of Civil Judge. Though she was much eager to apply for the post, on perusal of the Notification, it was made ineligible to apply for the said post under the category Fresh Law Graduate.

3.2. It was her grievance that though age relaxation has been given for the category of Fresh Law Graduates, no concession was given in respect of year of completion of the Law Degree, which deprived the golden opportunity of participating in the examination. It was her stand that the increase in upper age limit alone is not sufficient and the condition pertaining to the year completion must be extended by another two years, taking note of the previous Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 13.09.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 24.04.2023;

3.3. Since the existing Rules with regard to Research Assistants/Research Assistants cum Law Clerks are silent, she may be allowed to write the judicial service examination, as she is not eligible to apply either under the category Fresh Law Graduate nor under Practising Advocate. Therefore, she prayed for setting aside the relevant clause in the Notification.

W.P.No.18843 of 2023:

Briefly stated, we see that the Bench then mentions in para 4 that:
The petitioner/Suriyanarayanan had completed his Law Degree in the month of December, 2019 and due to Covid-19 restrictions, enrollment had not taken place and was delayed by nine months. He virtually enrolled as an Advocate only on 20.09.2020. When he attempted to apply for the Civil Judge examination called for by the TNPSC, citing the eligibility criteria, he was not permitted to apply for the post. On enquiry with TNPSC, it was found that there were fixation of two categories, namely, one is Practising Advocates/Pleaders and Assistant Public Prosecutors and the other one is Fresh Law Graduates.

4.1. It was the grievance of the petitioner that he was unable to apply for the post either in the category of Fresh Graduate or under Practising Advocate, owing to the delay caused by the Pandemic and his rights to compete with other candidates cannot be curtailed for no fault of him and he cannot be made as a scapegoat due to the delay caused by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Hence, he sought a direction to the respondents to process his application and permit him to write the judicial service examination.

W.P.No.19652 of 2023:

Simply put, the Division Bench discloses in para 5 that:
The petitioner/Sathiyamoorthy had obtained Law Degree from the Government Law College, Trichy in the year 2010 and enrolled as an Advocate on 23.04.2011 in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. When he was aspiring to appear for the judicial service examination, the age relaxation, found in the Notification was against the principle of social equity, as no relaxation was provided for the people belonging to the communal minorities, such as SCs and STs.

5.1. It was urged that since the Notification has been issued after a lapse of three years, many number of Advocates might have definitely crossed the prescribed age limit over three years. There was no mention of the maximum age in Rule 5 and Column 3 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995 and it stipulates attainment of the age of twenty five years and candidates should not have attained the age of thirty eight years on the 1st July of the year in which the selection for an appointment is made and there was certain amendment in the Rules made by TNPSC in the year 2007, which reads as follows: Age: Must not have attained the age of 40 years in case of the reserved categories and 35 years in case of others as on 1st July of the year in which selection for appointment is made.

5.2. It was stated that though the petitioner had sent a representation to the 2nd respondent on 20.06.2023, there was no response received from the 2nd respondent. Since the Notification and Advertisement being unconstitutional, illegal and discriminative, both are liable to be quashed and a direction was sought to entertain the application of the petitioner for the post of Civil Judge.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 8 that:
Learned counsel for Indulekha submitted that at the first blush, the Notification issued by the respondent TNPSC was not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, wherein it was held that all High Courts must ensure timely selection and appointment of judicial Officers. In the state of Tamil Nadu, the last recruitment was made only in 2018 and thereafter, there was no Notification with regard to selection and appointment of Judicial Officers, pursuant to which, there was huge backlog of vacancies and justice was denied to ordinary citizens.

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 24 that:
Thus, it is apparent that no relaxation can be granted in the present case on hand, as there was no infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or Statutory Rules warranting interference by this Court. As discussed supra, due to Covid pandemic, no selection process to the judicial service had taken place and if the plea of the petitioners is accepted, it would amount to opening a Pandora box and several other similarly candidates would start knocking at the doors of this Court with the similar demand and in that case, recruitment will turn out to be a never ending process as the examination is scheduled on 19.08.2023. In the absence of any arbitrariness, infringement and fickleness, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and we do not want to bring the selection process to a standstill, in view of the fact that vacancies (almost 300) in the Subordinate Judiciary in the cadre of Civil Judges is a disturbing one, on account of which there is a deprivation of promotion to eligible Civil Judges as Sub-Judges and Sub-Judges to District Judges.

As a corollary, the Division Bench holds in para 27 that:
In view of what is stated herein-above, we are not inclined to grant the relief to the petitioners. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench concludes by holding in para 28 that:
Before parting with this judgment, we suggest that judicial service examinations shall be conducted every year so as to ensure to minimize the pending litigations, as, of late, it is noticed that certain cases are pending for more than three decades in view of the fact that future vacancies are known on account of retirement of Judicial Officers.

In essence, it is high time and certainly what the Madras High Court has directed so very commendably must be implemented forthwith. It certainly merits no reiteration that judicial service examinations should be conducted every year to reduce the huge number of pending cases due to paucity of Judges due to recruitment not taking place in time. There can be no gainsaying that no nation can ever progress where judicial vacancies of Judges are not filled up well in time and there is a huge backlog of pending cases and still most pathetically the exams of judicial services are not conducted well in time!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh